Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday April 05, 2011 @07:13AM
from the simple-twist-of-fate dept.

An anonymous reader writes "A federal judge has reversed a $625.5 million judgement against Apple in a patent infringement lawsuit pertaining to Apple's Cover Flow feature. The lawsuit was filed by Mirror Worlds, a company founded by Yale professor Dave Gelertner. 'Mirror Worlds may have painted an appealing picture for the jury, but it failed to lay a solid foundation sufficient to support important elements it was required to establish under the law,' US District Judge Leonard Davis explained in his decision."

Nothing. I haven't read the decision, but it sounds like Mirror Worlds obtained a jury verdict against Apple for $625.5 million. A jury verdict is worth nothing until the judge orders that the clerk enter judgment according to it. In the American legal system, a jury can decide facts but the judge rules on the law. A jury's finding of fact is generally unassailable unless there was basically no evidence in support of that fact. It sometimes happens that a jury will reach a verdict and then the lawyers will argue whether the verdict was supported by competent evidence. If it was not, then the verdict will not stand. It does not take much evidence to allow a jury verdict to stand - even circumstantial evidence standing alone can be enough - but it takes some.

In other words, what happened here was that Mirror Worlds had lazy or stupid lawyers who failed to present evidence on all of the facts they had to prove to the jury, so even though the jury came back with a verdict in their favor the verdict is of no value. They can appeal the judge's ruling and ask the appellate court to reverse his decision and order judgment on the jury verdict, but they will have to point the appellate court to specific evidence in the trial transcript and exhibits that supports each and every element of their claims. If they couldn't point the trial judge to that evidence after he had sat through the whole trial, it is unlikely they will be able to show it to the appellate court - if they are even allowed to, since you generally cannot raise an issue on appeal that you never raised in the court you are appealing from.

There is likely no precedential value of this judge's decision beyond this one case, except that Mirror Worlds' lawyers will work harder in the future at their new jobs.

The wording there is that the jury are the "judges of the law and the facts." That doesn't necessarily mean that they determine the law, but possibly only that they apply the law to the facts. That is the normal way of doing it, although I do not know whether Georgia has addressed which of these (normal or abnormal) the state constitution actually means.

I wouldn't call it a step in the right direction necessarily. It's nice to see a troll get what it deserves (i.e. nothing), but this does point out that to overturn a patent, you have to have resources to do so. Which means the big players are going to have to lead the charge.

Plus, those same leaders have to be willing to not enforce the patents that they have with the same tactics. Last I checked, Apple seems pretty willing to defend its patents.

No, it's a step in the wrong direction. The precedent[1] set by this is that companies with a lot of lawyers are probably safe from patent trolls. Apple gets to keep being a cheerleader for software patents and to keep enforcing their software patents against other companies.

The best outcome would have been for this to have stood up. $625.5m is not a small amount of money, even to a company like Apple. A few more of these, and the patent system starts to be seen as a liability for big companies, rather

2.5 days of revenue for Apple is about two weeks worth of profit, with their posted margins. That's a nontrivial amount. It doesn't take many of those in a year for patent lawsuits to become their biggest expense.

So: because it is a small amount of money (according to your calculation) you would have preferred an unjust ruling over a just one?Sorry, I don't really get why Apple should suffer from a patent troll, just because Apple is successful at the market.

I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.

Maybe you missed the words "on a computer", which makes it a completely new innovation. "On a phone" and "on a tablet" also make it completely new all over again. I mean, who would've thunk to make something that looks and feels like reality...on a computer/phone/tablet? It's so innovative. [/sarcasm]

I could of sworn I saw this kind of thing on CD jukeboxes and when flipping through a book. Maybe I was hallucinating.

Maybe you missed the words "on a computer", which makes it a completely new innovation. "On a phone" and "on a tablet" also make it completely new all over again. I mean, who would've thunk to make something that looks and feels like reality...on a computer/phone/tablet? It's so innovative. [/sarcasm]

Can you find a single patent that was granted because of the words "on a computer", "on a phone" or "on a tablet"?

No. You can't. Those words appear in dependent claims, and are there for the purpose of claim differentiation. The independent claim from which they depend doesn't contain those words, and is still patentable, because it has the key innovation.

The concept of claim differentiation is straightforward - claims can't claim the exact same subject matter... Dependent claims have to be smaller. If the independent claim is a large space on a Venn diagram, each dependent claim is a subset of that space. So, when someone has a dependent claim of "2. The method of claim 1, wherein the transmitting is performed on a computer," all that means is that the original claim 1 may apply to things other than computers.

Same concept - if claim 1 includes a network, and claim 2 says "wherein the network is the Internet," that just means that the network in claim 1 could be the Internet, or could be a LAN, VPN, or any other type of network.

That's it. The end. Respectfully, your complaint is out of pure ignorance of how patent law works.

Can I then patent the act of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket? I mean sure, people screwed old style uncoated lightbulbs into a socket, but they've never screwed in this new kind. It's a totally different invention.

Can I then patent the act of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket? I mean sure, people screwed old style uncoated lightbulbs into a socket, but they've never screwed in this new kind. It's a totally different invention.

35 USC 102: "Has the invention been done before?" - Nope. You're fine here.
35 USC 103: "Even if the invention hasn't been done before, is it a combination of two or more other inventions that create a predictable result?" - Hmm... Screwing in a lightbulb is known. The durable lightbulbs are known. If you combine the two, you get a method of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket. Nope. No patent for you.

Yes, but my instructions for screwing in the lightbulb will be on the internet.

35 USC 102: "Has the invention been done before?" - Nope. You're fine here.
35 USC 103: "Even if the invention hasn't been done before, is it a combination of two or more other inventions that create a predictable result?" - Hmm... Screwing in a lightbulb is known. The durable lightbulbs are known. Posting instructions on the internet is known. If you combine the three, you get a method of posting instructions on the internet for a method of screwing the coated lightbulb into a socket. Nope. No patent for

Yes, I suppose I am. Other than posting what the rules are supposed to be, can you seriously say with a straight face that with tens of thousands of software patents being granted per year, that all of them pass all of the tests? I don't buy it.

How about Amazons gift purchasing patent [uspto.gov]? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

How about Amazons gift purchasing patent [uspto.gov]? Claims 1 to 34 were thrown out and the first claim that stands is:

35. A method in a computer system for coordinating delivery of a gift from a gift giver to a recipient, the gift and recipient being specified in a gift order, the method comprising: determining whether the gift order includes sufficient information so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient; when sufficient information is not provided in the gift order, obtaining delivery information from one or more information sources other than the gift giver; and when sufficient delivery information can be obtained from the additional information sources so that the gift can be delivered to the recipient, directing the gift to be delivered to the recipient as indicated by the delivery information.

What could possible be novel besides the "in a computer system" part?

Actually, it's pretty odd to get delivery information from sources other than the gift giver. Normally, you get a gift order and it's missing something like a destination address, you go back to the gift giver and say "where the hell do you want this thing to go?" Going to a third person seems like a good way to get answers like "uh, you should put it in the back of my car. That's totally it."

Can you find a single patent that was granted because of the words "on a computer", "on a phone" or "on a tablet"?

No, because the people filing them know that they are filing silly and invalid patents, so they dress them up all pretty-like. "One-click" was called "running a tab" for thousands of years. Couple "running a tab" with "on a computer" and it's somehow novel. They didn't even change the basic premise. You walk into the bar. You talk to the bartender to set up the terms of the tab. Then, you say "I'd like that" and poof, you just bought it according to the terms you'd already agreed to. The exact same t

The jury on Oct. 1 said Apple was infringing three patents and awarded damages of $208.5 million for each patent. Apple had argued in court papers that the amount was too high and that it was improper to add the damages. Davis agreed, saying “the evidentiary record is insufficient to support the jury’s damage awards” even if the infringement finding had been upheld.

So, basically, the Judge felt that the fine was too high and threw the fine out. Apple was found guilty of in

That's the bit that makes this a load of crap (even though I hate patent trolls). They were found to be infringing but the fine was too large. Basically, they won too much. They should have convinced the jury to keep it under $80 mil.

Apple didn't infringe the patents, so the patents are fine and not invalidated, and continue to sue others. But, the patents just don't apply to what Apple has done, so Apple doesn't need to pay a fine for not infringing on the patents.

What happened here is a Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict[tm], aka JNOV. It's not an appeal and it's not often used. Its reasoning is as follows (no, I'm not putting a cynical bent on it): no reasonable jury could have made that verdict, therefore the jury is unreasonable, therefore its finding is invalid, therefore I shall override its verdict.

Put another way, the judge probably has a stack of Mac Pros sitting outside his office right now.

No uncorrupt judge could have made that verdict, therefore the judge is corrupt, therefore his findings are invalid.

FTFY. Why should we give any more credence to you, than you gave to the judge for using the same line of argument?

If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty. Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes. Say, for example, you were accused of paedophellia, and the prosecutor simply screemed at the jury rhetorical questions like, "Do you want a man like this near your kids?", or "How can we be sure he isn't going to rape your daughter?", and the jury convicted you on these grounds alone, would you not prefer that the judge point out that no case has been established?

As a final point (although at this point it's probably useless given the apparent void of any critical thought here on/. regarding accusations of corruption of people in positions of perceived power), why would a judge risk a stable, well-paying job, his freedom, and his legacy, for a few mac pros? I mean, his decision will be published, and it is witnessed by several parties in the court at the time. If there was no substantiating evidence for the validity of his opinion, such a void of evidence would be apparent to anyone (with sufficient knowledge) who reads the decision. It seems, therefore, unlikely that the judge would do anything so overt as to throw the decision to apple for anything less than extremely substantial material gain (more than a few mac pros, or a few hundred thousand dollars), and it seems unlikely for apple to attempt such a bribery at such a steep going rate.

If the lawyer failed to make a solid case, but the jury were impressed, then the judge should step in as a course of duty.

The judge is welcome to direct the jury during the case, yes. Anyone found guilty or losing a civil case is also welcome to appeal. A JNOV is neither. A JNOV is a judge being persuaded to change his mind, deciding after the finding that the jury should have been directed, but without the requirement for the party previously judged against to present a proper appeal to a better authority. It's essentially a way of fudging the system by making a ruling at a particular level non-binding.

Sometimes proof differs from conviction, and arguments that impress a jury may be, in fact, riddled with holes.

It is unlikely that he would. Any reward would have to be far greater, and you're being deliberately obtuse. Of course, no organisation has ever managed to bribe a judge with the prospect of current or future reward, so I guess I should apologise for making such an insane implication.

I assure you that I'm not being deliberately obtuse; I was taking the mac pros to be a metaphor for any type of bribery. But yes, I'm glad you realise that the implication was insane. I've seen many such implications made here

Dave Gelertner is also famous as one of the UNABOM victims who survived. He originally wrote a book called "Mirror Worlds" that offered a theoretical means to digitally replicate the natural world in a way that would be indistinguishable from the original. After publishing this book he received a mail bomb from the UNABOM (purported to be FBI detainee Ted Kaczynski) which prompted him to stop publishing, remove the book from distribution, and re-write another book under the same title that some consider a c

The (thin) articles say that Gelertner's patent was for arranging documents in a time flow. Why wouldn't Eadweard Muybridge's work be prior art? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muybridge)

This sure seems to me to be Yet Another Duh! patent.

Muybridge died in 1904, long before documents were stored and retrieved electronically. As for it seeming common sense, you have to remember that it was filed in 1999, long before what we accept as normal ways to do things, today, just 12 years later.

Besides, the overturning judge ruled the patent valid, somehow, he just wrote off the damages from the infringement.

That's irrelevant; merely replicating a manual process on the computer is not patentable.

The courts have ruled differently. Patents are about processes. Arranging documents chronologically on a computer takes a different process than arranging them manually.

he patent was ridiculous even when Gelernter got it 12 years ago; people back then already had many ways of arranging and browsing documents and other content graphically very similar to the way Gelernter attempted to patent.

That is probably true, but none of the other people patented the idea. I guess if they had published how they were doing it, then prior art might be applicable, but just because they were doing it does not, in and of itself, make it prior art. People were killing mice long before the first mouse trap was patented.

He ruled that Apple didn't infringe the patent. In effect, he said that the only way the patent is valid is that it is so narrow that Apple didn't infringe. There are lots of narrow patents like that (exact shape of print cartridges, exact shape of connectors, etc.). They can be valuable, but in this case, they probably aren't.

This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.

So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying r

This is bad news for small developers. According to the article, the original patent in question was filed in 1999 and a jury determined that Apple infringed upon it. Then when it was appealed, the judge determined that even though the jury ruled one way, they were wrong. Then he goes on to eliminate the awarded damages, while at the same time stating that original patent was valid.

So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties,
So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?

As you note, the judge determined the jury was wrong.

The jury found (i) the patent was valid; (ii) Apple infringed; and (iii) the damages were $625.5M for infringement of the three patents.
The judge said that (i) was correct, but that (ii) and (iii) were wrong as a matter of law.

So, the judge and jury agree that the patent is valid, but the judge disagrees that Apple used the patented technology. Finally, as a matter of law, the damages award should have been $208M at most - you don't get to triple your damages by asserting infringement of three patents in a single suit.

As for sending it back to the lower court, this was the lower court. It can (and since there's at least $208M on the line) and will go to appeal from here.

The jury found that the patent was valid and awarded the case to the patent troll based on the validity of patents. The troll said you're infringing, the defense said it's an invalid patent, the jury didn't see it as an invalid patent and Apple didn't make it's case that they weren't infringing and thus the jury of your retarded peers awarded damages. The judge didn't say the patent wasn't valid he just said it didn't apply to what Apple was doing. There's a lot of patents and a lot of them are invalid but

Why do you call this guy a patent troll? From what I read, it was a legitimately filed patent back in 1999. Aren't most patent trolls the ones who purchase portfolios of patents and then use them against other companies?

So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?

This all happened in the same court. This isn't an appeal, it is still the same court case.

Apple claimed that the jury was wrong when it said the patents were valid; the judge looked at it and said that Apple didn't give convincing evidence that the patents were invalid. They came up with 100s of pages of supposed prior art, but they should have explained _why_ the that was actual prior art. So that part of the jury decision stands.

Apple also claimed that the jury was wrong when it found that Apple was infringing on those patents. So the judge looked at all the evidence, and he found that the evidence, even if all the evidence against Apple was true and all the evidence for Apple was false, didn't show that Apple was actually infringing. Since it didn't show that Apple was infringing, a reasonable jury could never have made the decision that they made. The judge is not supposed to accept such unreasonable jury decisions, so he decided that Apple did not infringe.

Lastly, not mentioned here, Apple also complained that the damage calculation was wrong, and the judge agreed with that as well. It doesn't matter anymore because Apple doesn't have to pay any damages.

So, if the judge agrees with the jury that the original patent was valid and then Apple uses the technology without paying royalties,So, how can a judge find that the original patent is valid (which is also what the jury determined), recognize that Apple used the patented technology (which is also what the jury determined) and then through out the award and close the the case? At a minimum, should it not have been sent back to the lower court to be re-tried?

You don't suppose there couldn't be another option? One in which the judge thinks the patent is valid, yet at the same time, doesn't believe that Apple infringed on it?

The judge ruled that Apple did not infringe the patent at issue, and the judge also set aside the jury's damages award. The judge upheld the validity of the patent, which likely means that the judge agreed with the jury on invalidity.

It's somewhat rare for a judge to completely disregard the jury's verdict, especially on a fact-intensive inquiry such as noninfringement. After the jury verdict, Apple most likely filed a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of noninfringem

Lemme think a moment. 625 milion. The lawyers take a cut, expert witnesses want their pay, I have to pay for all the expenses involved in being in court for half of eternity. When everyone is paid off - I might have enough to take the taxi home.

Mirror Worlds Technologies, Inc. was a company based in New Haven, Connecticut, which created software using ideas from the book Mirror Worlds: or the Day Software Puts the Universe in a Shoebox...How It Will Happen and What It Will Mean (1992) by Yale professor David Gelernter, who helped found the company and served as chief scientist. The company ceased operations in 2004.

The troll is Mirror Worlds, LLC of Tyler, Texas (a subsidiary of Plainfield Specialty Holdings I, Inc.) which filed the suit against

Reigning in the lunacy surrounding software patents appeals to most/. readers. It's comforting to know that some are so narrow minded they cannot see how this eventually affects most end users and not just a single manufacturer.

I have to agree, just before the jury verdict (ie. after seeing all the evidence) the judge denied a judgement as a matter of law... and then turned around and essentially granted it on appeal after the jury verdict. It smells to high heaven.